At one of my top picks, there is a professor who is a leader for the "pro-gun" school of thought. As a responsible gun owner, this is an important issue to me. The professor is a considerable reason for my applying to the school. Gun ownership is, however, controversial. Should I skip this issue in my Why X?

Does the professor head up some kind of "firearms policy" program at the school? I'm having a hard time seeing how the presence of one particular professor at a school is going to make enough of a difference in your education for it to be "a considerable reason" for applying there.

I mentioned recreational and competitive shooting under the "interests" part of my resume, but I wouldn't waste space on it in a PS or 'Why X'.

ScottRiqui wrote:Does the professor head up some kind of "firearms policy" program at the school? I'm having a hard time seeing how the presence of one particular professor at a school is going to make enough of a difference in your education for it to be "a considerable reason" for applying there.

I mentioned recreational and competitive shooting under the "interests" part of my resume, but I wouldn't waste space on it in a PS or 'Why X'.

I might as well say who it is. It's Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the majority decision effectively rendering Illinois a Shall-Issue state.

It's part of a greater point about the law school's being a good place for those like me who hold arguably controversial views.

ScottRiqui wrote:Does the professor head up some kind of "firearms policy" program at the school? I'm having a hard time seeing how the presence of one particular professor at a school is going to make enough of a difference in your education for it to be "a considerable reason" for applying there.

I mentioned recreational and competitive shooting under the "interests" part of my resume, but I wouldn't waste space on it in a PS or 'Why X'.

I might as well say who it is. It's Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the majority decision effectively rendering Illinois a Shall-Issue state.

It's part of a greater point about the law school's being a good place for those like me who hold arguably controversial views.

Mentioning that you really want to learn from Judge Posner, and giving reasons why, is a perfectly fine "why Chicago"

Maybe craft the PS around your experience and/or interest in The Bill of Rights and Federal/State law issues. You can mention the 2A and how current cases addressed this never-ending tension between the Fed and the State.

If you structure the essay as a "state's rights" proponent you can make your PS more about your view of law and less about guns.Address the guidance of the Constitution, and the brilliance of the founders to leave the rest to the people (aka..the States).

However, you are entering law schools where 95% ,if not more, of all the admin are die-hard liberals, anti-gun, and anti State's Rights.Be aware of that. Play nicely.There is a reason they stay in the safety of academia. Don't expose it, they get snappy.

just remember that Posner is probably the most well-known UChi professor so you're going to want to stand out from the crowd and show that you really know what you're talking about. so either go broad and discuss a lot of Posner's ideas, or go in depth with the gun control issue and respond to Posner's ideas on the subject. for instance:

Richard Posner wrote:There are two important lessons that can be drawn from Becker’s discussion of gun control. The first is that a problem that is not dealt with in its early stages may become insoluble. It is not only the sheer infeasibility of removing 200 million guns from the American population, but also the emergence of a gun culture, that has ended hopes of disarming the population. The more people who own guns, the more other people will want to own them as well for self-defense; and the further ownership spreads, the more normal it seems. The ownership of guns has always been common in rural areas (the lower population density of the United States compared to Western Europe is an important reason why private ownership of guns is so much greater here), where there are hunting opportunities and police are spread thin. But now it is common in the rough areas of cities as well. Drug dealers cannot rely on police to enforce their deals and therefore have to arm themselves, and their law-abiding neighbors decide they had better be armed as well. (The news media create an exaggerated fear of violent crime, and this also contributes to the demand for guns by law-abiding people.) If population density continues to grow and the drug trade were legalized, gun ownership might begin to fall.

I think you should mention gun ownership, so get rejected. Would be a good introduction to law school for you.

More seriously, do not mention gun ownership in the PS. Don't get political in the PS. Join the federalist society or something when you get admitted. You are entitled to your diverse views, but adcoms are also entitled to reject you for them.